[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8474-8477]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            KATIE SEPICH ENHANCED DNA COLLECTION ACT OF 2010

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4614) to amend part E of title I of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for incentive 
payments under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
program for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection 
processes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4614

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA 
     Collection Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS UNDER THE BYRNE GRANTS PROGRAM FOR 
                   STATES TO IMPLEMENT MINIMUM AND ENHANCED DNA 
                   COLLECTION PROCESSES.

       Section 505 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Payment Incentives for States to Implement Minimum 
     and Enhanced DNA Collection Processes.--
       ``(1) Payment incentives.--
       ``(A) Bonus for minimum dna collection process.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B), in the case of a State that receives funds 
     for a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2011) under 
     this subpart and has implemented a minimum DNA collection 
     process and uses such process for such year, the amount of 
     funds that would otherwise be allocated under this subpart to 
     such State for such fiscal year shall be increased by 5 
     percent.
       ``(B) Bonus for enhanced dna collection process.--In the 
     case of a State that receives funds for a fiscal year 
     (beginning with fiscal year 2011) under this subpart and has 
     implemented an enhanced DNA collection process and uses such 
     process for such year, the amount of funds that would 
     otherwise be allocated under this subpart to such State for 
     such fiscal year shall be increased by 10 percent.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) Minimum dna collection process.--The term `minimum 
     DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a 
     process under which the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation is searched at least one 
     time against samples from the following individuals who are 
     at least 18 years of age:
       ``(i) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, 
     or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that 
     consists of murder or voluntary manslaughter or any attempt 
     to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter.
       ``(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged with, 
     or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that has 
     an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with 
     another and that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 
     5 years, or an attempt to commit such an offense.
       ``(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for, charged 
     with, or indicted for a criminal offense under State law that 
     has an element of kidnaping or abduction punishable by 
     imprisonment for 5 years or more.
       ``(B) Enhanced dna collection process.--The term `enhanced 
     DNA collection process' means, with respect to a State, a 
     process under which the State provides for the collection, 
     for purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System 
     (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of DNA 
     samples from the following individuals who are at least 18 
     years of age:
       ``(i) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with 
     a criminal offense under State law that consists of murder or 
     voluntary manslaughter or any attempt to commit murder or 
     voluntary manslaughter.
       ``(ii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged 
     with a criminal offense under State law that has an element 
     involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another and 
     that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, or 
     an attempt to commit such an offense.
       ``(iii) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged 
     with a criminal offense under State law that consists of a 
     specified offense

[[Page 8475]]

     against a minor (as defined in section 111(7) of the Sex 
     Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 
     16911(7)), or an attempt to commit such an offense.
       ``(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged 
     with a criminal offense under State law that consists of 
     burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.
       ``(v) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with 
     a criminal offense under State law that consists of 
     aggravated assault.
       ``(3) Expungement of profiles.--The expungement 
     requirements under section 210304(d) of the DNA 
     Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132(d)) shall apply 
     to any samples collected pursuant to this subsection for 
     purposes of inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System 
     (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(4) Reports.--The Attorney General shall submit to the 
     Committee of the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee of the Judiciary of the Senate an annual 
     report (which shall be made publicly available) that--
       ``(A) lists the States, for the year involved--
       ``(i) which have (and those States which have not) 
     implemented a minimum DNA collection process and use such 
     process; and
       ``(ii) which have (and those States which have not) 
     implemented an enhanced DNA collection process and use such 
     process;
       ``(B) describes the increases granted to States under 
     paragraph (1) for the year involved and the amounts that 
     States not receiving an increase under such paragraph would 
     have received if such States had a minimum or enhanced DNA 
     collection process; and
       ``(C) includes statistics, with respect to the year 
     involved, regarding the benefits to law enforcement resulting 
     from the implementation of minimum and enhanced DNA 
     collection processes, including the number of matches made 
     due to the inclusion of arrestee profiles under such a 
     process.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection for each of 
     the fiscal years 2011 through 2015, in addition to funds made 
     available under section 508, such sums as may be necessary, 
     but not to exceed the amount that is 10 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated pursuant to such section for such fiscal 
     year.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010, 
otherwise known as Katie's Law, will help prevent violent crime, help 
exonerate the innocent, give our police access to cutting-edge forensic 
techniques, and reduce the cost of criminal investigations. More 
importantly, Katie's Law will help victims of violent crime and their 
families get answers and the closure that they need.
  Katie's Law encourages the States to adopt effective DNA collection 
procedures. States that meet the minimum standards set by the bill are 
entitled to a 5 percent bonus in Byrne/JAG funding for State and local 
law enforcement. States that adopt the enhanced standards are entitled 
to a 10 percent bonus. These funds are in addition to funds awarded 
through Byrne/JAG. States that do not adopt collection procedures that 
meet the new Federal standards are not penalized in any way. Katie's 
Law also directs the Attorney General to report to Congress once a year 
on the progress made by the States in adopting new collection 
procedures.
  Katie's Law is named for Katie Sepich, who is remembered as a vibrant 
young woman and a graduate student at New Mexico State University. In 
the summer of 2003, Katie was brutally raped and murdered just outside 
her home. Katie's parents, Jayann and Dave Sepich, waited for 3 long 
years as the investigation continued, without producing any strong 
leads. In January, 2006, thanks to the efforts of the Sepich family, 
the New Mexico State legislature passed a measure to require the 
collection of DNA evidence in the investigation of certain felonies. 
Months later, investigators linked a DNA sample from Katie's attacker 
to a sample taken from a repeat violent offender who had been in and 
out of police custody for years. Confronted with the evidence, the 
suspect pled guilty to the crime and is now serving 69 years in prison 
without parole.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the law enforcement officers who solved this 
crime. But consider the fact that Katie's assailant was arrested for 
aggravated burglary just weeks after attacking Katie. If a DNA sample 
from that individual had matched evidence from the crime scene, the 
case might have been solved years earlier; police officers could have 
saved thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours; and Katie's 
family might not have spent 3 painful years in investigatory limbo.
  Katie's Law provides the resources necessary to solve crimes sooner. 
This measure passed the House with overwhelming support last Congress, 
and has cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I commend my 
colleagues, Harry Teague and Adam Schiff, for their tireless work on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4614.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4614, which I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of. The Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act authorizes 
incentive grants to States that implement programs to collect DNA 
samples from felony arrestees. DNA arrestee programs provide an 
important law enforcement tool to identify the perpetrators of open and 
unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crime by linking 
suspects to crimes and locking them up before they have a chance to 
strike again.
  Katie Sepich's case clearly demonstrates the value of collecting DNA 
from felony arrestees. Just 3 months after brutally raping and 
murdering Katie in 2003, Gabriel Avilla committed an aggravated 
burglary for which he was convicted in 2004, absconded from his 
sentencing, and was apprehended again in 2005. His DNA was finally 
taken and matched to Katie's case--a match that could have been 
obtained just 3 months after Katie's murder, saving valuable law 
enforcement resources and providing some closure to Katie's families 
and friends.
  New Mexico's DNA arrestee law was passed in 2006. Twenty-one other 
States now have similar laws, including my home State of Florida. 
Florida's DNA arrestee program solved a 25-year-old murder when the 
suspect was arrested last May--and his DNA collected--on felony drug 
charges. In New York, DNA collected following a drunk-driving arrest 
linked a suspect to three rape/homicides dating back over 20 years.
  By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into a 
national DNA data base, or CODIS, States can empower police and 
prosecutors not only to solve cold cases but hopefully apprehend 
violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized and 
precious lives are lost. H.R. 4614 provides incentive grants to States 
that implement and use DNA arrestee programs.
  The amended version of this bill before us today makes several 
important improvements to the bill. First, it removes the provision 
that would have penalized States that do not have arrestee programs by 
deducting 5 percent of their Federal grant money. Second, it creates a 
two-tiered system for incentive grant awards based upon whether the 
State has a ``minimum'' or ``enhanced'' arrestee program, which I hope 
will provide greater flexibility to States receiving those grants. 
Third, the amended bill places a cap on the authorization level, 
limiting it to 10 percent of the amount appropriated for the Byrne/JAG 
grant program.
  I support these improvements to the bill. However, I also recognize 
there are other areas where the bill could also be improved. A 
significant hurdle to States implementing DNA arrestee programs is the 
cost. In Georgia, for instance, where legislation was introduced 
earlier this year to require DNA collection from arrestees, it would 
cost

[[Page 8476]]

as much as $7 million a year to operate the program. Unfortunately, 
Georgia will not be eligible for an incentive grant under H.R. 4614 
until it fully implements a DNA arrestee process. A possible solution 
would be to allow States, such as Georgia, to use grant funding to 
implement their DNA arrestee law, where the costs are arguably their 
highest.
  In addition, H.R. 4614 awards incentive grants to States with DNA 
arrestee programs not just once, but year after year after year. 
Perhaps the emphasis should be on those States that have not yet 
enacted or implemented a DNA arrestee program. Because this grant 
increase is compulsory under this bill, the Justice Department will be 
required to administer the additional bonus to States even if Congress 
does not appropriate additional funds for the program. There is concern 
that this may ultimately result in depleting Byrne/JAG funds from 
certain States, thus creating a penalty to States without the DNA 
arrestee law. I hope to work with all concerned parties and resolve the 
lingering issues as this legislation moves forward.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may 
consume to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Teague).
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Katie Sepich 
Enhanced DNA Collection Act, or Katie's Law. First of all, I want to 
thank my colleagues, Representative Schiff and Representative Reichert, 
for all their hard work on this important piece of legislation. Most of 
all, I want to thank Jayann and Dave Sepich, constituents of mine from 
Carlsbad, New Mexico, for bringing this important issue to my attention 
and for crusading tirelessly to help pass arrestee DNA laws nationwide.
  This bill is named for their daughter, Katie Sepich, who was brutally 
raped and murdered in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 2003, at the age of 
22. Jayann and Dave have bravely taken this devastating and horrific 
experience that most people, including myself, could never imagine, and 
have turned it into something that will save lives and help families 
across the country. If this law had been on the books in New Mexico at 
the time of Katie's murder, her case would have been solved 3 months 
after her death when her killer was arrested for breaking into the home 
of two women after watching them through a window. Instead, Katie's 
killer was not identified until over 3 years after her murder and was 
left to roam the streets for much of that time.
  Since Katie's murder in 2003, New Mexico has passed a State law 
allowing law enforcement to collect DNA from those arrested for certain 
felonies. Twenty-two other States as well as the Federal Government 
have passed similar laws. I have introduced my version of Katie's Law 
at the Federal level to make sure that this life-saving law that is in 
effect in my home State of New Mexico and 22 others is the standard for 
every State.
  The Katie's Law I have introduced will incentivize States to, at the 
very least, match certain arrestees to the national DNA bank, the 
Combined DNA Information System, or CODIS, by providing the States that 
comply with a 5-percent increase in their Byrne/JAG funds. There is no 
requirement for retention of the DNA record after it is checked against 
CODIS. Katie's Law will also further incentivize those States which not 
only match arrestees but also contribute to the CODIS with a 10-percent 
increase in Byrne/JAG funds. Not only do these incentives encourage 
States to implement arrestee DNA laws, but they provide much needed 
support to local law enforcement as they work to keep our streets safe.
  DNA has rightly been called the fingerprint of the 21st century. By 
simply swabbing a person's cheek and then coding junk DNA with only 13 
indicators, law enforcement can accurately identify perpetrators of a 
crime without regard to race or criminal history. This practice 
protects the privacy of arrestees, since any identifying information, 
such as genetic predisposition to disease, is not coded for use by law 
enforcement. In addition, my bill contains an expungement clause to 
make sure there is a way for DNA to be removed from CODIS should a 
person not be convicted of the crime for which they were arrested.
  The full potential of DNA as a crime-solving tool cannot be realized 
if we're not collecting DNA from those arrestees for certain violent 
crimes. Statistics show that 70 percent of America's crimes are 
committed by 6 percent of America's criminals. This means many of those 
who have committed some of the most heinous crimes in our society are 
repeat offenders.

                              {time}  1600

  One study conducted in Chicago tracked the known criminal activity of 
eight individuals and determined that 60 violent crimes, including 53 
murders, would have been prevented if the eight individuals' DNA had 
been taken on their first felony arrest. Similarly, a serial killer and 
rapist from California named Chester Turner raped and murdered at least 
12 women between 1987 and 1998, during which time he was also arrested 
a total of 18 times. Had Turner been swabbed for DNA when he was 
arrested on January 26, 1987, he would have been linked to his first 
victim, and 11 women would still be alive today. These women are not 
just names in a police report. They are real people with aspirations, 
with families, with husbands, with people who love them, and they 
didn't have to die. Worse still, an innocent man named David Jones was 
wrongfully convicted of three of the Turner murders and served 11 years 
in prison before he was finally absolved.
  Considering the potential for false identification and the number of 
repeat offenders in our criminal justice system, it's only common sense 
that if someone is arrested for a crime like rape, murder, or 
kidnapping, we make sure we identify them fully before we release them 
back onto the streets. We use fingerprints for this very purpose, and 
we should use the modern equivalent, junk DNA.
  Katie's Law simply allows law enforcement to treat DNA evidence left 
at the scene of a crime as they do fingerprints. The fact is that the 
science has advanced, and we should allow law enforcement to use all of 
the technology available to them, including the fingerprints of the 
21st century, to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring 
closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, 
and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets.
  Jayann and Dave have experienced something that no parent should ever 
have to, the loss of a child. We have the power through advanced DNA 
collection to make one less parent grieve for a child, one less husband 
grieve for a wife, or one less child lose a parent.
  I ask that you support this legislation.
  Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), a former sheriff and 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to join with Mr. Teague and 
Mr. Schiff to fight for Katie's Law. Think about what I just said, 
``Katie's Law.'' We have a bill named after a young lady, a 22-year-old 
woman whose life was ripped away from her, so we name a law, and her 
name will live on. Katie Sepich from Carlsbad, New Mexico, 22 years 
old. Her life was ripped away from her by a monster.
  I think most Members of Congress know that I had a full career as a 
police officer, a sheriff's deputy, SWAT commander, homicide detective, 
hostage negotiator, a street cop for 33 years, and finally as the 
sheriff before I left the Sheriff's Office. I know firsthand what DNA 
does.
  In 1982, I was a 31-year-old homicide detective standing by the 
riverside, collecting the bodies of three young women, 16 years old, 
dead. No DNA then. All we had was blood-typing. We were fortunate, 
though, that we had

[[Page 8477]]

some bodily samples that we could take that we froze and we saved for 
19 years. In 1987, the team of detectives that were together on that 
case had an opportunity to search the home of a suspect and take body 
fluids from him. He chewed on a piece of gauze. We put it in a test 
tube, and we froze that. In 1987, ``CSI'' of course had not been heard 
of, but we were still using science--entomology, biology, archaeology, 
forensic pathology, et cetera. No computers. No DNA. Still blood-
typing.
  In 1998-99, the first DNA science became known to law enforcement, so 
we sent our sample to the only two labs that were dealing with DNA at 
that time. They said, Your samples were too fragile, too small. We 
might destroy them if we tested them further, so come back in a couple 
of years. In 2001, we submitted the samples, and we came back with a 
DNA match on three of the bodies. With that DNA match, out of 40,000 
tip sheets, 10,000 items of evidence, we solved 48 murders. We closed 
50 cases. He pled guilty to 48 murders because of DNA.
  I can't tell you how important Katie's Law is to saving lives. That 
person who committed these 48 crimes and many, many more took the 
deaths of these young women, ended their lives tragically and ruined 
the lives of their families for the rest of their lives. There can 
never be closure for those families and never be closure for their 
friends. There can only be answers to questions, Who killed my 
daughter? Who took her life and why? That's what DNA does. But it also 
protects the innocent, as most of you know. There have been some over 
the past several years that have actually been released from prison 
because they found the guilty person.
  So there are all kinds of reasons why this law needs to be passed 
today, and I hope every Member votes ``yes'' to pass Katie's Law in 
honor of the tragedy, the loss of Katie's life, and in honor of all 
those who have been taken so senselessly.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many 
further speakers the floor manager has remaining?
  Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield for as much time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  DNA is perhaps the most powerful and most reliable tool at the 
disposal of criminal investigators today. As a former Federal 
prosecutor during the early days of the DNA revolution, I have seen 
firsthand the power of DNA to prove the guilt or innocence of a 
suspect.
  In 2008, I proposed an amendment to the Debbie Smith Act 
reauthorization that would have put in place a 10 percent bonus in 
Byrne/JAG grants for States to collect DNA profiles from anyone 
arrested for certain serious felonies. It passed the House with a 
strong bipartisan vote, but the clock ran out in the Senate. I could 
not be more pleased that Congressman Harry Teague has taken up the 
banner on this issue. I hope this year we can finally get it across the 
finish line.
  You have heard the tragic story of Katie Sepich, for whom this bill 
is named. Katie was a bright, vivacious 22-year-old from New Mexico who 
was murdered in 2003. Police were able to extract the DNA profile of 
her attacker from beneath Katie's fingernails, but they got no match to 
anyone in the offender database. When they finally did get a hit on the 
attacker's DNA, they discovered that the murderer had been arrested 
repeatedly for burglaries after 2003, but because he was never 
convicted, he was not required to submit a DNA sample for the database. 
Had New Mexico had arrestee testing at the time, Katie's killer would 
have been taken off the streets years earlier.
  There are 23 States, including my home State of California, that have 
now adopted DNA collection upon arrest or indictment for at least some 
violent felonies. By doing so, these States increase the power of the 
national database to solve crimes. The bonus in Federal law enforcement 
grants provided by Katie's Law will encourage additional States to 
adopt arrestee testing law. The legislation preserves civil liberties 
protections by requiring the FBI and the States to expunge the DNA of 
suspects who are acquitted.
  We know the power of this technology. We also know the cost of delay, 
the cost of an inadequate database, and it is simply this: that as we 
wait to run these samples or if we miss the opportunity to test the 
samples of those arrested for violent felonies, we know with a virtual 
statistical certainty that people we could take off the street, people 
that have committed rape or committed murder, will, in the interim 
between the time we do take the sample of the arrestee or between the 
time we do erase the backlog, will go on to murder others, to rape 
others. And what a tragedy it is when we have this tool not to utilize 
it to its full extent.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. 
Harry Teague has been a great champion. Congressman Reichert has been a 
great champion, and we are indebted to their leadership on this. This 
legislation is the product of years of work and debate in Congress. It 
will help law enforcement use DNA to solve crimes, and it will keep in 
place existing civil liberties protections. So hats off to 
Representatives Teague and Reichert for their leadership on this issue 
and to Chairman Conyers and to Chairman Scott for their support as 
well. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, I want to personally thank Mr. Teague from 
New Mexico and Mr. Reichert from Washington for their leadership on 
this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California). The 
question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4614, 
as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. ROONEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________